Allowed

National Ins.Co.Ltd v. Smt. Charubala Sarkar and 3 Ors.

Tripura HC7 Jul 2017MAC App./15/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal by the National Insurance Company Ltd. against an award for motor accident death. The Court held that income tax ought to have been deducted from the deceased's income before calculating compensation and directed that punitive interest under Section 171 be withdrawn, awarding only statutory interest.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed in part; the appellant is directed to deposit the calculated compensation after deducting income tax and removing the excessive penal interest award.

National Ins.Co.Ltd Vs Smt. Charubala Sarkar and 3 Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA A G A R T A L A

¶2

	MAC. APP. No.15 of 2014 The National Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Agartala Divisional Office, Akhaura Road, P.S. West Agartala, District – West Tripura
	[Insurer of vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-S-0246 (Ambassador) & TR-03- C-9880 (Motor Bike)] ......Appellant V e r s u s
1.	Smt. Charubala Sarkar, wife of late Anil Sakar
2.	Sri Krishna Sarkar, son of late Anil Sarkar
	-all are residents of village – Sataria, Dhajanagar, P.O. Gokulpur, P.S. R.K. Pur, District – Gomati, Tripura
3.	Smt. Jyoti Chowhan, wife of late Shyam Chowhan, resident of South Ramnagar, P.O. Ramnagar, P.S. West Agartala, District – West Tripura
	[Owner of vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-S-0246, Ambassador]
4.	Sri Jhutan Chowhan, son of late Shyam Chowhan, resident of South Ramnagar, P.O. Ramnagar, P.S. West Agartala, District – West Tripura
	[Driver of vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-S-0246, Ambassador] ….. Respondents BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
	For the appellant : Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate
	For the respondents : Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate
	Date of hearing & delivery : 07.07.2017 of Judgment & Order
	Whether fit for reporting: Yes No √

¶3

[2]

¶4

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶5

Heard Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel along with Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶6

[2] This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act arises from the judgment and award dated 16.05.2013 delivered in T.S. (MAC) No.340 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No.4, West Tripura, Agartala.

¶7

[3] In this appeal there is no challenge against the finding relating to the accident that occurred on 23.06.2012 on the National Highway at place called ‘Itbatta’ near Bishramganj for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01-S-0246 [Ambassador]. The appellant has also not challenged the finding that the offending vehicle was duly insured by the appellant. When the victim, namely Ramu Sarkar was returning home by ridding the motorbike bearing registration No.TR-03-C-9880 along the Agartala-Sabroom highway, at about 1715 hours when reached to the place of accident, the offending vehicle dashed the bike by losing control. Both the biker and the pillion-rider received injuries. Ramu Sarkar [the biker] succumbed to the injuries and died in the hospital. For death of said Ramu Sarkar, the claimant-respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the

¶8

MAC APP No.15 of 2014 Page 2 of 5

¶9

[3]

¶10

tribunal. The tribunal after recording the evidence awarded a sum of `39,90,480/- [Rupees Thirty Nine lacs Ninety thousand Four hundred Eighty] with an interest @7% per annum to the claimantrespondents payable within a period of 2(two) months from the date of said judgment and award, failing which the interest @9% per annum shall be charged.

¶11

[4] In this appeal, the following grounds of objection have been projected by the appellant:

¶12

(i) the tribunal did not deduct from the income, as assessed, the income tax which was supposed to be paid by the deceased;

¶13

(ii) the penal interest that has been imposed is beyond the authority as provided under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act and

¶14

(iii) the proof of age is not supported by proper record.

¶15

[5] Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal has admitted the driving license of the deceased and from the said driving license, the tribunal has deduced the date of birth of the deceased and observed that at the time of death, the deceased was aged about 25 years. Thus, the multiplier ‘18’ was chosen for having the loss of dependency. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has fairly submitted that on the basis of the salary certificate the annual income was derived by the tribunal but the income tax as ought to have been

¶16

MAC APP No.15 of 2014 Page 3 of 5

¶17

[4]

¶18

deducted from his income has not been so deducted. At the relevant point of time i.e. in the assessment year 2013-2014, up to the income 1,80,000/- no tax was payable. From 1,80,000/to 8,50,000/-, the payable income tax was 10% per annum. If, as a whole and grossly without any further deduction, the annual income is calculated it would come to 2,94,480/-, as the monthly gross salary the deceased used to draw was 24,540/-. Thus, the net taxable income would come to 1,14,480/- and the payable tax comes to `11,448/-.

¶19

[6] From the other hand, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has fairly acceded that such deduction ought to have been made by the tribunal. Hence, the said amount has to be deducted from the annual income of the deceased. After deduction the amount would come to 2,83,032/-. The monthly income would, therefore, be 23,586/- and as the deceased was below 40(forty) years, 50% of the income is liable to be added as the loss of future prospect. Loss of future prospect per month would come to 11,793/-. The monthly income for purpose of assessing loss of dependency would, therefore, be 35,379/-. This amount would be multiplied for having the loss of dependency i.e. 35,379/- X 12 X 18=76,41,864/- following the principles as laid down in Sarla Verma & Ors vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 since the deceased is admittedly a bachelor, 50% shall be deducted from his income as the personal

¶20

MAC APP No.15 of 2014 Page 4 of 5

¶21

[5]

¶22

expenses. Therefore, total dependency would come to 38,20,932/. The said amount shall carry interest @7% per annum as no punitive interest can be imposed within the authority of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act. With the said amount, another sum of 25,000/- would be added as the loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation would come to `38,45,932/-. The claimant-respondents No.1 & 2 would get the equal share of the said compensation when the said amount shall be deposited by the appellant. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of 2(two) months from today after deducting the sum that has already been deposited by them.

¶23

Mr. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has already deposited a sum of `39,65,480/-. It goes without saying that at the time of depositing the amount, the said amount shall be straightway deducted. On deposit, the claimant-respondents No.1 and 2 will be entitled to withdraw the amount in terms of the directions as given by the tribunal by the impugned judgment and award. The claimant-respondents No.1 & 2 shall remain entitled to withdraw the deposited sum in equal share.

¶24

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

¶25

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Sujay

¶28

MAC APP No.15 of 2014 Page 5 of 5

National Ins.Co.Ltd v. Smt. Charubala Sarkar and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Ins.Co.Ltd v. Smt. Charubala Sarkar and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chinta Haran Bhowmik Vs Land Acquisitin Collector and Anr.

Bhupal Ch. Das Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Manoranjan Sen Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Soumitra Dasgupta Vs the State of Tripura and Anr.

Manoranjan Debnath Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Babul Paul Vs Ratan Debnath and Anr.